 |
| |
|
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
And with this system you'll only be able to build a small number of cities, each with a very big difference in size and each 60 turns after the other ! (you need defensive units as well).
|
The difference in indevidual size and development is a god thing. I dont favour yet another empire of 25-30 equally developed twin-New Yorks.
quote:
And I don't want a game like CTP where your empire is huge at 12 cities.
|
Considering the whole timescale, there should be time to found at least 20-25 cities of your own - any additional cities you can conquer. Dont forget that.
Anyway, there are ways to ease off the expansion-penalty somewhat, so it dont becomes quite as steep as you suggests. First of all dont forget that the settlers represent two pop-points - this means that any founded city automatically starts out with two pop-points (it can merge, remember), instead of just one - as in Civ-2.
Also; In Civ-2 for example the settler required two foods. In civ-3 however, the settler should perhaps still require two foods, but the worker only one food. Compare below:
In Civ-2: One city-area improving settler meant two foods city-growth-penalty. Also: One city-area improving settler (-2 foods) + one city-founding settler (-2 foods) meant no less then four foods penalty.
In Civ-3 however: One city-area improving worker now perhaps only requires one food penalty (= faster city-growth). This also means that one city-area improving worker (-1 foods) + one city-founding settler (-2 foods) now only requires three foods penaltly.
You see - there is always these tweaks they can do, if not Firaxis, so at least the indevidual player through the .txt tweak-files. Still; the granary-improvement and any additional irrigated grasslands now becomes more important then it was in Civ-2 - not to mention the increased importance of building shield-producing tiles. Is that really such a bad thing?
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 08, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Henrik
|
 |
The European Union, Sweden, Lund
Dec 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ralf on 04-08-2001 06:44 AM
By the way, I just realized:
Does tile-improving and city-founding units still really require food-support - just as in Civ-2? I took that for granted, but now im not sure. Firaxis isnt clear about that. Some additional clarifications from Dan Mahaga is needed, I think.
About the new ability to merge settlers and workers with existing cities. Think about what that means. Internal population-transferings! Your huge mid/end game mega-cities can help out any newly founded small city, by sending them settlers to merge with the new city, and by that very quickly ramp up the size of that new city. This leads to some new and interesting strategies, doesnt it?
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 08, 2001).]
|
You could do this in civ 2, but only untill the city reached size 8.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
|
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-08-2001 11:51 AM
I wouldn't be so sure about the food upkeep on settlers and workers yet. There has been no mention yet of them being supported any differently from every other CivIII unit which has been changed to gold alone. Thus far the only change has been the pop loss per unit, no mention yet of upkeep.
|
Well, in that case we must delay any further definitive judgements about the pros & cons of the settler/worker pop-loss penalty, until we DO know. I think however we can safely asume that settlers/workers needs some form of upkeep (read below underlining).
Firaxis website quote:
"Settlers and workers are also able to merge with a city, thus increasing its population. Conversely, to produce a new settler or worker, a city gives up not only the requisite number of shields, but also population points (2 population points to create a settler, 1 to create a worker). This added requirement makes settlers and workers very precious resources that you'll want to protect."
Above underlining seems to suggest that the pop-loss penalty is added on top of something else. If this "something else" is the old food-requirment or the new gold-requirment is anybodys quess. Personally I think the food-requirment seems most logical for both settlers and workers. After all, if citizens require foods inside a city, why shoudnt they require it then they work/migrate outside the city-square as well?
On the other hand: If for example a 4-point city looses both 2 pop-points AND is required to maintain 2-foods upkeep for that settler (as long as it havent settled yet) - maybe this is the straw that brakes the camels back. To much and to little spoils everything.
I guess we just have to wait and see until Dan Mahaga hopefully give us a definitive answer on this one.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 08, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
 |
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:12
|
|
(...I'll post this here, too...)
I will go on record here as saying: ICS is NOT dead! The basic priciple of scattering cities everywhere will STILL apply. Of course, it will be a little slower and a little less effective than it is now...perhaps even significantly so.
Its biggest effects, of course, will be in the early game, and this is indeed very welcome in one sense. But unless other areas are made to compensate, we could also be left a VERY slow early game...which might or might not be to people's liking. One good effect of the slower start, though, is the computer might have a much better chance early on, which has a potential host of good side-effects in and of itself.
By the mid- to late-game, however, you can expect people to be 'booming' (ICS-ing) as they always have with very little changes overall. So what if my size 18 city drops to 16 so I can start a new city? There's virtually no reason NOT to do so (unless there are other factors at work here we haven't been told). This might add just a bit more strategy as the WHEN to ICS, but the necessity to ICS (at least against a human player) is still with us.
So before people start jumping up and down that ICS is dead, I'd merely like to point out that given what we know, ICS has has been made a bit more stratetic instead of merely automatic. Still, it's a move in the right direction. This coupled with some other modifiers might make empire building far more challenging. Let's see.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Father Beast
|
 |
My head stuck permanently in my civ
Feb 2000
time: 22:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roman on 04-06-2001 05:35 PM
The news regarding the settler taking two population is exelent! I believe this kills ICS and at the same time does not kill city growth, which removing the city tile worker would have done. Congratulations, Firaxis - a very innovative solution. 
BTW: Do new cities now start with 2 population, or still with population 1, but having a tile worker and a normal worker? (Of course, I know it makes little difference - ICS is dead anyway)
|
This is a very important question. The only true cure for ICS is for each citizen to only work 1 tile. If your new city starts out with a population of 2, with each only working 1 tile, then new cities start with the same production as in civ2, and ICS is dead.
IF, however, the city starts as a pop 1, with the standard "free" production of the city tile, then this is just a workaround, and I'm sure that experienced players will find ways to work around the workaround. I'm not sure how, but something about building a settler from a size 3 city as opposed to a size 2 come to mind.
Besides, if the city starts out as pop 1, then I feel kind of cheated when I give up 2 pop for 1.
DAN MAGAHA FIRAXIS, Where the bleep are you? we need this answered!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Father Beast
|
|
My head stuck permanently in my civ
Feb 2000
time: 22:12
|
|
Yin! You posted the same time as I did!
OK, Yin, the strategy of cranking out hundreds of cities will still be an option. I don't think that's what we mean about ICS. to me ICS is is the phenomenon where 5 size 1 cities have a lot more production than 1 size 5 city.
It all depends on whether you have the free city tile or not.
I mentioned this Idea back in the Ultimate ICS thread sometime back, but I was shot down, people said this was tried in CTP, and it was not good. Forgive me when I say that something not working in CTP isn't a final answer. maybe if activision was making civ3....
Of course, you should be able to fill the continent with cities if you want. and then discover that you have no more production base than that super science city over there. of course, you also have all that territory staked out, if you can hold it... maybe keep them off you with peace treaties. Hmmmnnn...
I heard someone mentioning an artificial limit somewhere, but not from Firaxis.
Starting a city at pop 1 with only the city tile being worked might well make things too difficult. to start cities at pop 2 seems to me an elegant solution.
That is, if they are doing it.
DanM, we need an answer!!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simpson II
|
 |
varies
Jul 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
Mmmmm... interesting, I'm kind of surprised no-one thought of this, now.
Will it work? From the screen-shots we can pretty much tell that the old granary system of growth is included. So, a size one city will still grow much faster than a size 3... I suspect that we'll still be pumping out settlers asap, though it depends on the cost of other things. Libraries and temples, especially - you realize we'll have to keep order in size 3s early on in deity? *shudder* Assuming happiness is implemented the same way, that's going to be a shock to the system.
I'm very doubtful about the idea that this will halt early conflict - the extra wait for a settler could mean that you have lots of excess production to pump into military. Then again, it might have to stay home to control the people with these bigger cities.
However, a quasi-perfectionist WLT*D strat should beat ICS for science output now. That's a very important improvement thing, IMO. Currently the fastest way to AC uses only one library, which is just inane.
OCC will be insanely easy, though!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dennis_caver
|
 |
Beaverton, OR
Jan 2001
time: 05:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Father Beast on 04-09-2001 02:43 AM
Maybe I'm missing something, but why is that people complain about civ being too easy to beat, then when something comes along to fix the great ICS (The Civ equivalent of the RTS tank rush. all build and no brain), then we complain that playing without ICS is BOOORING?
I can't win at king, and that's probably because I don't ICS. I love my cities. building up my first city to something useful before I expand is a labor of love.
"Dang it, why'd they take out the civ1 settler cheat? it's the only thing that made the game fun!"
Oh, Please
|
Hi Myopic Beast,
If you reread my post I didn't say anything about ICS. After doing
ICS a couple of times and conquering the AI around year 1000AD, I
don't use ICS. I usually use what I call TCS for fun. (Targeted
city strategy). The idea here is to have fun winning the game. And
having fun in each era of the game. Build an empire, enjoy making
great cities, and of course conquering Rome with a pack of Elephants.
My point was that, depending on implimentation, the first part of the
game could be so slow that you might as well skip it. Pushing the
next turn button trying build an empire until the year 500AD isn't
what I call fun.
Someone else made a point that 3 cities of 4 pop is more effective
then 1 city of 12 pop. Unless were are playing a fantasy game this
is how the real world works. 4 small cities have a large advantage
in trade and a smaller advantage in production, military and
science. In the real world most nations start with alot of small
defendable cities and later progress to a mixture.
Also the beginning of the game could be made a little more realistic
by adding some barbaric things humans did to each other. CTP added
slavery. How about in the early governments you could add tribute.
If one city decided not to pay tribute then the local chief/Lord had
the right to either wipe out the rebels or move some of their pop
to his favorite city. Trading between cities could include horses,
weapons and females. Not only could you have barbarians but you
could have cannibal raids. People could live in temporary shelters
like nomads.
Cavin forever,
Dennis
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
|
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dennis_caver on 04-09-2001 04:01 PM
Someone else made a point that 3 cities of 4 pop is more effective
then 1 city of 12 pop. Unless were are playing a fantasy game this
is how the real world works. 4 small cities have a large advantage
in trade and a smaller advantage in production, military and
science.
|
Tokyo alone is (or at least was before the japanese economic recession in the 90:ies) more powerful, industrially and economicly, then Great Britain is. Just thougt I should mension that. 
Anyway, its important (in order to combat BAB: the Bigger-Always-Better problem) that a really small, but well-cultivated late-game empire, of lets say only 6-8 cities, is compensated by the benefit of building really huge 25-30+ sized mega-cities, thus generating great wealth. A benefit that any huge empire consisting of 25-30+ founded cities + even more conquered, simply shouldnt have.
I dont care about real-world comparisons - its a question of game-balance. And doing something about the BAB-problem. Poll: Strategy-game or world-history simulator
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 09, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-04-2001 14:58
|